Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by expuddle, Sep 30, 2010.
BTS was an expansion.
Civ 5 is a new game.
BTS's review was not, and should not be, a review of what Civ IV became overall with BTS loaded, but only a review of how much better the game got going from Warlords to BTS, and whether that represented a good additional entertainment value.
Civ IV itself got a 9.4 from gamespot, BTS got an 8.5. Civ V got a 9.0.
Seems pretty accurate to me.
Game is awesome, not sure why you think the reviews were wrong.
most of the reviews aren't "wrong"
they're just opinions from people interested in very different things than you are
and for your affirmation, the scores are MUCH lower than civ4's
the actual scale for reviews with these high profile games is 80-95. don't think of it as 1-100
Because the game was released on steam, the updates will probably be coming quick and often. Steam updates can polish a game faster then patches IMAO. I think that they released the game on steam for this reason along with the obvious; copy protection. Civ 4 has had quite a lot of big patches and problems big and small. Read through them. I think that Civ 5 will be more and more enjoyable to play as time goes on. I've been playing it solid since I got it. There are a lot of problems but I like the graphic upgrades and some of the changes. I think the best still lies ahead.
Why do you think that games aren't re-reviewed once they have been patched or updated on gamespot or ign? There are quite a few games that changed drastically with patches and these "review sites" never bother to update their reviews. PC games can change.
How does Steam speed up the polishing process? It just makes patches easier to get, it doesn't make the devs come up with fixes faster.
Nope. Complaints are always louder than praise, that's all. Been playing Civ for about 20 years, and I enjoy 5 quite a lot. It's not perfect - the AI needs definite work - but it's a great game.
The people that tell you that "only newbies enjoy this game" are the ones trying to inflate the consequence of their own opinions.
You can release patches whenever you want. Everyday? Then, they don't have to be lumped into a massive patch. Which, then sometimes needs to be patched again with the next massive patch. You have never owned a game that was exclusive to steam?
OP is based on the assumption that we all think the reviews are wrong, don't assume for us, thanks.
I only really check review sites for news and release dates. If I want to know how a game is, I come to places like this or go to an independent blog. Or, just ask on Facebook and see if my friends have played it. You cannot expect much objectivity from people who are dependent on the industry for their existence. No conspiracy, but as others have said they want to stay on good terms with developers.
Seriously, check out Afforess's review here, it is as detailed as any you'll find on a site, but has the advantage of being written by someone who knows Civ in a way that very few do.
But what is the "life cycle"? Do we have to pay for the game and then pay again for the expansions that make it the game it should have been since the begining?
What expanding game franchise doesn't operate like this?
You presumably did it with Civ IV.
I am a civ veteran too, 33 years and played since the first in 91. I have to say ditto. Love Civ 5 so far, and I want more!
Stardock does. GalCiv 2 had a lot of improvement before getting an expansion. And the same is happening with "Elemental: War of Magic"
Another example: Heroes of Might & Magic V. The first version had some big issues. Bad for Ubi. But when they fixed those issues with the expansions they made patches for the vanilla game that added those fixes. The only thing you didn't got in those patches was the new content (factions, maps) but you got all the gameplay fixes.
This thread should of ended here. Anything else said after this quote is just blahblahblah.
Not at all. The core features of the vanilla version were not changed in the expansions. The expansions just added more stuff.
Never. That's why never before I had an auto-patch break my game. Just so you know, many non-english Windows XP users were unable to play the game after the .17 patch. May be if they had released a finished game that didn't need rushed patches, big and less frequent patches that get properly tested would come out instead.
I haven't played any of the others you mention, but Elemental is a tragic mess. I don't know if I'd use that as an example.
Elemental is a very good example. The version 1.00 was a big disapointment. But they have been fixing it (not only technically, I mean in gameplay) and now that it is v1.08 there is a big change. There are still many things to do, but it's unbelievable how many things they have already fixed in only a few weeks.
The first disapointment has turned into amazement when I have seen how they are really caring about fixing the game and expanding it with things that should had been there since release day. And doing it very well.
Separate names with a comma.